HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.09.03 Planning Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
A Proud Past. A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Qpallty,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
.
AGENDA
. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 9, 2003
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) August 12, 2003
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Rezone of 1000, 1012, and 1020 8th Street from R-2 to B-1.
Applicant: Ivan &: Janet Janssen, Levin ft Patricia Olson, and Harold ft Karen
Gillespie ft Grace Anderson
.
b)
Zoning Text Amendments for (1) Section 10-5-17: Spruce Street Commercial
District Permitted and Conditional Uses, (2) Creation of a
Business/Commercial Flex Zoning District, and (3) Creation of a Mixed-Use
Zoning District
Applicant: City of Farmington
c) Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning. Amendments for selected
properties south of CSAH 50 and west of Denmark Avenue
Applicant: City of Farmington
4. DISCUSSION
a) Meadow Creek 4th Addition Final Plat
b) Review/Approve Seed/Genstar AUAR
c) Discussion of research concerning separation of animals pens from adjacent
homes
d) Discussion of MUSA Review Criteria
5.
.
ADJOURN
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
\{fV
FROM: Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for three
(3) properties located on 8th Street.
DATE: September 9, 2003
INTRODUCTION
.
Three adjacent property owners have requested comprehensive plan amendments and zonin~
amendments for their properties located at 1020 8th Street, 1012 ath Street, and 1000 at
Street. The properties are currently designated as Low/Medium density in the Comprehensive
Plan and currently zoned R-2, Low/Medium Residential. The owners are requesting to change
the Comprehensive Plan designation to Business and change the zoning designation to B-1,
Highway Business.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2002, currently designates the subject properties
as Low/Medium Density Residential (see attached map). In order to recommend an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission must determine that a
residential designation is no longer appropriate for the subject properties and that a Business
designation would be more consistent with the City's long-range goals. If the Commission
decides that the requested amendment should be approved, it may then act on the rezoning
request. Without a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the rezoning could not be approved.
Zoning
The subject properties are currently zoned R-2, Low/Medium Density Residential. Permitted
uses in this zoning district include:
.
Daycare facWties, ;n home.
DweWngs, single-family.
DweWngs, twin home.
DweWngs, two-family.
Group daycare, 12 or less persons.
Group home, 6 or less persons.
Public parks and playgrounds
Conditional uses in the R-2 zoning district include:
.
Accessory apartment.
Bed and breakfast.
Cemeteries.
Churches.
Clinics.
Funeral homes.
Group homes, commerdal.
Hospitals.
Nursing homes.
Public and parochial schools.
Public build;ngs.
Public utility buildings.
The applicants are collectively requesting that the existing zoning be amended to B-1,
Highway Business. Permitted uses in the B-1 zoning district include:
Animal clinics.
Clinics.
Clubs.
Coffee shops.
Commercial recreational uses.
Convenience store, wnhout gas.
Health clubs.
Hotels.
Motels.
Offices.
Personal and professional services.
Personal health and beauty services.
Recreation equipment sales/ service/ repair.
Restaurants, class I, tradWonal.
Retail facilities.
Sexually oriented businesses - accessory.
Conditional uses in the B-1 zoning district include:
.
Auction houses.
Auto repair, m;nor.
Auto sales.
Car washes.
Child daycare center, commercial.
Convenience store, with gas.
Dentallaborator;es.
Grocery stores.
Group daycare centers, commercial.
Hospnals.
Nursing homes.
Outdoor sales.
Public buildings.
Public utilny buildings.
Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience.
Restaurants, class ff1, with liquor service.
Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating.
Solar energy systems.
Supply yards.
Theaters.
Wholesale businesses.
As shown on the attached zoning map, the properties adjacent to the subject properties on
the north and south are currently zoned B-1. Granting the requested zoning change would
create a contiguous B-1 District on 8th Street between Ash Street and the property north of
Hickory Street.
The Commission must consider, however, the impact of the rezoning on surrounding
properties. The Planning Commission must determine if the type of uses listed above are
appropriate for these properties given their potential effect on the low density housing
located in close proximity.
ACTION REQUESTED
. Consider the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Amendments for the
properties located at 1020 8th Street, 1012 8th Street, and 1000 8th Street. Any of the following
options would be appropriate:
.
1) Recommend Denial of both the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the rezoning.
2) Recommend Approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and Recommend denial of
the rezoning. (If the Commission believes that the best long-term use of the property is
commercial, but the best short-term use of the property is residential, then this option would
be appropriate).
3) Recommend approval of both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning.
4)Table the requests in order to gather more information.
Respectfully Submitted,
q~~
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
.
.
Request for Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Current Comprehensive Plan Map
Hickorv Street
....
~
~
....
\.I)
..t::
....
J'...
....
~
~
....
\.I)
..t::
....
OQ
,.."
::....
~
..t::
.~
i
Ash Street Farmington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-.-..
Castle Rock Township
N
A
Request for Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Current Zoning Map
Hickory Street
......
<:u
~
......
V')
~
.....
l'....
.....
<:u
~
......
V')
~
......
00
rt)
>...
.~
~
~
.CS)
:I:
Ash Street Farmington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------.----.
Castle Rock Township
.
N
A
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
\/~V
TO: City Planning Commission vr
FROM: Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for
Certain Properties Located South of CSAH 50 and West of Denmark Avenue.
DATE: September 9, 2003
INTRODUCTION
.
The City of Farmington is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone certain
properties in the area south of C.S.A.H. 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. The amendments
and rezoning would be consistent with a Master Plan for the area that was approved by the
City Council on September 2, 2003. The proposed amendments and rezoning do NOT, at this
time, include the Knutsen property located at the northeast corner of the site. The Knutsen
property was rezoned from Business Park to Spruce Street Commercial (western portion) and
Parks/Open Space (eastern portion) on February 18, 2003. At the same meeting, the City
Council changed the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Knutsen property from Business
Park to Business(western portion) and Environmentally Sensitive (eastern portion).
A small portion (4.8 acres) of the Knutsen property is identified in the Master Plan as a
"Mixed-Use" area. Certain types of mixed uses could be accommodated under the existing
Spruce Street Commercial District, which might eliminate any need to rezone a portion of the
Knutsen property to the newly created Mixed-Use District. A final staff recommendation
regarding the need (or lack thereof) to rezone any property to the Mixed-Use District will be
made after some specific information is obtained regarding the property owners'
development plans.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan
As shown on the attached Comprehensive Plan map, the subject properties are currently
designated Business Park, Medium Density, Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density
Residential, Natural Open Space, and Urban Reserve. The proposed designations would be
consistent with the land use plan provided in the Master Plan.
.
.
.
.
Zoning
As shown on the attached zoning map, the subject properties are currently zoned Business
Park, Agriculture, Single-Family Residential, Low/Medium Residential, and Medium Density
Residential. The residential districts are generally located south of the Vermillion River and
the Business designation is located north of the river. The proposed zoning would keep this
pattern intact, with the majority of residential zoning located to the south of the river. The
intensity of residential uses would increase, introducing High Density Residential to the area
and eliminating Single-Family Residential and Low/Medium Residential.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning
Amendments for the selected properties located south of CSAH 50 and west of Denmark
Avenue identified on the attached maps.
Respectfully Submitted,
q~Oi
-
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
c
ro
0..
CL>
>
'en
c
CL>
..c
CL>
~
Q.
E
o
o
0)
c
:;::;
(j)
'x
W
"2
.2
10
Iv
"0
.(ji
c:
o
u
....
Q)
"0
c:
::l
"0
..s
-
Q)
Q)
u.
o
o
o
N
o
o
l.O
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
l.O
z~
0>
C
C
o
N
0>
C
-+-
(f)
><
W
.
c-
oQ
~
Q)
"tJ
0;;;
c:
o
u
~
Q)
"tJ
c:
:;j
'0
.s
rrg
Q)
<Il
U.
o
o
o
N
o
o
LO
..-
o
o
o
..-
o
o
l.t'l
o
o
o
l.t'l
z~
.
.
G
\0
::r.
~
V1
'-.)
.
~
.,
-i1
I.
.~
-0
11\
$
<:I
V
"-
~
-cr
s:.
:::>
~
5
-"i
\1) . \j
~
-i
o
\.J
0/
.J
?
~
V;
~ ~
- \J 1-:
Vl l.. l4-
..,l
~ ~
- .0
Vl '-.)
':J
()tJ
De-""-MOV k Av.e.-
--r:~
~ '--\;i
~J o,l
- ~
-::t -
~
~
v
r;5
~.
V1
<
~
(::)
---
y
"-
DO
.--Z
~ ;-t>---i
::) \f\ \i
-:c "S ""'2.
idol
~
-- -
.-f'1
'f.~
~j
V
-:t:
'd
~+
l;~ ~
:) ~ ~
~ v ~
~aal
~
~
J)
-.i
i""o
~
N
V\
....,
c:
(I)
E
."
c:
(I)
E
<C
on
c:
.-
c:
o
N
."
(I)
V\
o
C-
o
~
0..
.- -:z.
.
.
.
(J
\J1
::r:
<(
if')
"-.)
~
0
-
1
~ ~
~
1 ()
V
J
-t
~
--..-J
t2
~
VI
:J
~
D l2-"'\. vV\ 0.. r k A \j e...
...; .f
D S"
"::t:Q
7"'""
-
~
Y.~
~~
~ ~
~\II
":>
~
~..r
..; . -
~ ~
~o
. ~ .r
') -
_.V'
~ ~
~d
-(
. VI
J
...J
.J1
~
~
.~
-fo
~
CD
'"
,IJ
c:
Q)
E
"
c:
Q)
E
<(
c:
to
-
0..
Q)
>
.-
'"
c:
Q)
.c:
Q)
L-
a.
E
o
u
-c
ell
'"
o
a.
o
L.
0..
+-':Z
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
\WV
City Planning Commission \
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
Meadow Creek 4th Addition Final Plat
September 9, 2003
Warren Israelson of Progress Land Company proposes to plat 126 single-family residential
lots in the fourth phase of Meadow Creek. The proposed subdivision is located east of
Prairie Creek and north of Autumn Glen in the northeast corner of the City of Farmington.
The City Council approved the preliminary plat on July 21, 2003.
Planning Division Review
Applicants:
Attachments:
Location of Property:
Area Bounded By:
Existing Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Existing Conditions:
Warren Israelson
Progress Land Company
6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100
Savage, MN 55378
952-226-3200
Final Plat
Located in the northeastern portion of the City of
Farmington.
Single-family residential to the west, proposed single-
family residential to the north, open space to the east
and single-family residential to the south.
R-1 - Single-Family Residential
R-1 Single-Family Residential to the north and south, R-1
PUD to the west and Empire Township to the east.
The property consists of vacant farmland and includes a
man-made waterway that is utilized as an outlet for
Lake Julia and runs southeasterly along the southern
boundary of the Fourth Addition.
.
e
.
Lot Coverage and Sizes:
The maximum lot coverage for an R-1 single-family zone
is 30%. The minimum lot size for the development is
10,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot width is 75 feet
measured at the front yard setback.
Topography:
The property is relatively flat.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to plat 126 single-family lots in the fourth phase of Meadow
Creek. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on July 21, 2003. Since that time,
the plat has been modified to include an additional 3 lots that were originally platted as
one (1) outlot in the 3rd addition of Meadow Creek. The individual lots were not platted
in the 3rd addition due to the uncertainty of the design of the Lake Julia waterway.
Now that the design of the waterway has been clarified, the additional 3 lots may be
platted. These 3 lots would be treated similarly to lots 1-5 of block 1 in the 3rd addition in
that no building permits would be issued until construction of the waterway is complete.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend Approval of the Meadow Creek Fourth Addition final plat contingent upon the
following items:
1. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1-3 of Block 7 until construction of the
waterway is complete.
2. An easement (20 feet wide) shall be provided between Lots 9 and 10 of Block 5 and
between Lots 30 and 31 of Block 5 to provide trail access.
3. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of
Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and
submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract.
Respectfully submitted,
q--aI::::-
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
0
oS
<II
iii ;;
Ol "
.... ..c::
0 C/l
'U '"
0 'C
(/)
(/) '"
<C
"0 ;;
"
c: ..c::
0 C/l
..
Q)
"0
.c
Q)
/-?" a::
"
,~~~
.~./
:c:
o
~
.......
,....... ",
---'."
;:t: ~ ,
~'"
S::l
r oo"ttI-1
la S! ;:0
L J <(,
r3~1,
18 01 81
Ill:! ,el
L Jjfrn'l J
r 3,J:Z.l1fJpt 1
". ~-,s:~ ~ I'
18 " 81
llf! ~
L lxnl.l J
r 3.r/:.DQ.Otl ,
~C\I (Q ~:
L OOWI J
r J.rz.DO.IJN '"l
(~ II) 81
~ .lIO.:i1:1 ~
~"
~~..~
\..W
I",.
~..,
U...
r a~"
18 .. 81
Ilf! ~)
to .,po"srl .J
r :i:i~""'iio.PN 1
18 (') SI
I~ ~
L ..ga_~t J
~ rJ:i'z~'
/8 <\I al
~:: I~ Xli
O "-L ..JlO"<<1 j
;"1'" J.sZ~ '
, ,
Q
~~
::e
..
z
..,
." hi~
~~ ~.
,.11 E~
~ ~~ &: o a~ t
~.~ ,,~ ~ ~~'ii
..
u2 0:.:: ;~li
0 o~ i.~
'5tJ
. ~i .~ tl~g
] E~ I g~~ ~
~~ '~1
~~ ~~j g ~
~Q g~ ;i~i~
~~ &~
. .
.'.
/Y
_z_
r ~-
I
L_
I
I
l<
'i
I (1.&
C1..
:I~
~!j
1,51.
o~z
~..;
I ]
~
i
!
.
.
/11;
,
,
,
,
,~
: f~~l
I 'i'~~i
: !flJ
- ~ fir:
I ~.ttl
: ;;;~..!
, "
:~ fih
,
!~ :
P'
Ai ~:
;:~.:.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Pygmy Goat Issue
DATE: September 9, 2003
INTRODUCTION
At the August 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to conduct
additional research regarding how other cities handle the issue of distance or spacing
between outdoor animal enclosures and nearby residential homes.
DISCUSSION
.
City staff reviewed relevant provisions in the City Codes of a number of different cities. Some
cities do not have any provisions that regulate or specify the minimum distance that must be
maintained between homes and animal enclosures. Of those that do, Lakeville and Cottage
Grove have Code provisions (see attached) that are fairly typical.
Cities that regulate outdoor animal enclosures (for animals other than house pets) seem to do
so in one (or more) of three ways:
1. They specify a minimum lot size for the keeping of farm animals (which is
generally defined to include goats). For example, Cottage Grove requires 1.5 acres
of land per "animal unit," and Lakeville requires at least 2.5 acres for anyone who
wants to keep horses.
2. They specify a minimum distance between animal enclosures and property lines
[60 feet in Cottage Grove] and/or the homes of nearby neighbors [300 feet in
Cottage Grove and 100 feet in Lakeville].
3. They prohibit the keeping of farm animals on rr non-farm" properties unless an
interim use permit is issued [as in Lakeville].
.
Minimum Lot Size. The Farmington City Code does not specify a minimum lot size for the
keeping of farm animals. As a result, property owners in any residential neighborhood can
currently keep farm animals on their property as long as they are able to meet the existing
500 foot spacing requirement between animal pens and nearby homes. If one of the Planning
Commission's goals is to reduce the presence of farm animals in residential neighborhoods to
the greatest extent possible, the Planning Commission should consider recommending to the
City Council that the City adopt a minimum lot size of at least 1 acre. Such a requirement
.
.
.
would make the vast majority of residential lots ineligible for the keeping of farm animals. If
the Council adopted such a recommendation, any residential property owner who has a lot
that is smaller than the new minimum lot size AND who is currently keeping farm animals on
that lot would have a legal non-conforming use after the adoption of the new requirements.
In other words, the current use would be "grandfathered" because the farm animals were
already being kept when the new ordinance went into effect. However, the non-conforming
use could not be expanded, which staff would interpret to mean that no new farm animals
could ever be brought onto the property. If an existing animal died or was removed from the
property for any reason, it could not be replaced with another farm animal. In time, there
would no longer be any farm animals on the property, so the initial non-conformance would
eventually be eliminated.
Distance ReQuirement. Farmington's 500 foot spacing requirement between animal pens
and nearby homes is significantly in excess of the minimum spacing that is required in
Lakeville, Cottage Grove and other communities. This may be due, in part, to Farmington's
lack of a minimum lot size requirement. If the Planning Commission recommends a minimum
lot size requirement, the Planning Commission could also recommend a reduction in the
distance requirement. City staff would recommend that the new distance requirement be
100 feet, which is consistent with the City of Lakeville's minimum distance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to recommend to the City Council that the City Code be amended to (a) incorporate a
1-acre minimum lot size for the keeping of farm animals and (b) specify a minimum distance
of 100 feet between any outdoor farm animal enclosure and any residential dwelling not
located on the same property as the enclosure.
R /ctfU~IYS~
K . arral! l
Community Development Director
.
.
.
LAKEVILLE
ANIMAL KENNEL: Any place where three (3) or more domestic animals of one type,
over six (6) months of age, are commercially kept, sold, boarded, bred, or exhibited,
except hospitals, clinics, and other premises operated by a licensed veterinarian
exclusively for the care and treatment of animals.
ANIMALS:
A. Farm Animals: Cattle, hogs, bees, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, horses and other
animals commonly accepted as farm animals in the State of Minnesota.
B. House Pets: Animals such as dogs, cats, birds (not including pigeons, chickens,
geese, turkeys or other domestic fowl), gerbils, hamsters, rabbits (including those
normally sheltered outside of the principal structure), and tropical fish, that can be
contained within a principal structure throughout the entire year, provided that the
containment can be accomplished without special modification to the structure that
would require a building permit, excluding wild or domesticated wild animals.
11-35-3: KEEPING ANIMALS:
The following animals may be kept in the City:
A. The keeping of house pets is a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts.
B. The keeping of horses is a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts provided:
1. The minimum lot size is two and one-half (2 1/2) acres.
2. The number of horses does not exceed one per acre unless a higher number is
granted by the issuance of a conditional use permit.
C. The keeping of farm animals is an allowed activity on all farm property. Farm
animals may not be confined in a pen, feedlot or building within one hundred feet
(100') of any residential dwelling not owned or leased by the farmer.
D. With the exception of the keeping of animals allowed by subsections A, B, and C of
this Section, no other animals are allowed except by interim use permit as regulated
under the provisions of Chapter 5 of this Title.
E. Animals may only be kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoning
district where the animals are located.
F. Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety
of the community.
G. Animal enclosures shall be subject to the accessory structure requirements of
subsection 11-18-7E of this Title. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000)
Cottage Grove
FARM ANIMALS: Horses, cows, sheep, bees, pigs, chickens, ducks and other commonly
known animals normally associated with farms, but excluding customary household
pets.
.
.
.
11-3-7: FARMING OPERATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
Agriculture is a permitted use in all residential districts, subject to the following:
A. Sales Of Agricultural Products: Limited sales of products produced on the owner's
property may be conducted on the premises from a roadside stand by conditional use
permit. Such stand shall not exceed twelve feet (12') in height or five hundred (500)
square feet in floor area, and no portion of any such stand shall be located or erected
nearer than forty feet (40') to any street line.
B. Farm Animals:
1. Parcels Less Than Forty Acres: The keeping of any farm animal on parcels of less
than forty (40) acres in size shall be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
a. The property must contain at least five (5) acres in contiguous ownership or
leasehold.
b. The property must contain at least one and one-half (1 1/2) acres of land per
animal unit. This number may be exceeded only by conditional use permit.
c. All buildings intended to house animals shall be set back at least sixty feet (60')
from all property lines and at least three hundred feet (300') from a dwelling other
than the dwelling on the property in question.
d. All pens, yards or other confinement areas, excluding pastures, where animals are
kept shall be set back at least sixty feet (60') from all property lines.
e. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency does not require that a feedlot permit be
issued.
2. Parcels Larger Than Forty Acres: The keeping of farm animals on parcels larger
than forty (40) acres in size is permitted, subject to the following conditions:
a. All buildings intended to house animals shall be set back at least sixty feet (60')
from all property lines and at least three hundred feet (300') from a dwelling other
than the dwelling on the property in question.
b. All pens, yards or other confinement areas, excluding pastures, where animals are
kept shall be set back at least sixty feet (60') from all property lines.
c. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency does not require that a feedlot permit be
issued. (1971 Code S 28-26; amd. 2000 Code)
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Discussion of MUSA Review Criteria
DATE:
September 9, 2003
INTRODUCTION
Preparing for future meetings of the MUSA Review Committee is a multi-step process. Several
steps have already been completed, and the next step involves a review of the criteria that
were used during the last MUSA review process.
.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting on June 16, 2003, the City Council approved the reconvening of the MUSA
Review Committee. The City Council and City staff subsequently met on July 28, 2003 to
further discuss various procedural aspects of the MUSA review process. At that meeting, the
Council determined that the Planning Commission should discuss the composition of the
committee, talk about the criteria used in the last MUSA review process, and discuss a
timetable and a specific process for the review.
The Planning Commission discussed the composition of the MUSA Review Committee at its
meeting on August 12, 2003. The Commission's recommendations regarding the composition
of the Committee were discussed and approved by the City Council at its meeting on
September 2, 2003. The make-up of the Committee wlll be as follows:
"Constituent Grou "
Ci Elected Officials
City Staff and/or Consultants
Pro osed Re resentatives
Ci Council members (2)
City Staff Members (2) OR
Ci Staff Member (1) and Ci Consultant (1)
ISD 192 Board Member (1)
ISD 192 Staff Member (1)
Plannin Commission members (2)
Parks & Recreation Commission member (1)
City Parks & Recreation staff member (1)
A
Ci Council
Interim City Administrator
ISD 192
ISD 192 Board of Directors
ISD 192 Superintendent
Plannin Commission
Parks & Recreation Commission
Interim City Administrator
Ci A ointed Officials
Parks & Recreation
.
After a few unresolved details regarding the MUSA review process have been addressed, City
staff will contact each "constituent group" to request that MUSA Review Committee members
be appointed.
.
.
.
The next step in the process involves a reconsideration of the "expansion criteria" that the
last MUSA Review Committee used to analyze the MUSA applications that it received. I have
attached a copy of the criteria in question. Please review them and think about:
(a) whether the existing criteria remain generally valid;
(b) whether the existing criteria can or should be written or described differently;
(c) whether any new criteria should be added; and
(d) anything else that can or should be done to make the criteria more clear or useful.
Example: it's clear that the City Council and most of the community's residents would like to
see the City expand the commercial and retail components of its tax base, and as quickly as
possible. Commercial/retail growth is largely dependent upon population _n that is, the
actual number of residents in the community AND where those residents are located in
relation to existing or planned business zones. The ideal set of circumstances would involve a
relative high number of residents (consumers) located in close proximity to a specific
geographic area that has commercial development potential. The Planning Commission may
therefore want to consider adopting a new criterion that would recognize the value of
granting MUSA to areas where residential growth would expedite the creation of new
retail/shopping/service/commercial opportunities for the enUre community.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review and discuss the attached criteria that were used in the last MUSA review process, and
then make recommendations to the City Council regarding possible additions, deletions or
revisions.
l
-.
ittcd,
~j{)
.
.
.
2005 MUSA EXPANSION CRITERIA
1.
Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 195th Street
between Akin Road and TH 3, 208th Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3,
etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in
the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
2.
Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically
feasible to connect to existing and / or planned infrastructure identified
in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
3.
Proximity to the central area of City (east of Akin Road and west of
Trunk Highway 3) to promote the connection of the northern and
southern portions of the City.
4.
Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or
parks) to the proposed property.
5.
Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Staff suggestion: Development must occur within 5-year
time frame.
6.
Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium,
Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that
supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
7. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural
drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington~ MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.m.n.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Review/Approve Draft of AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] for
Seed/Genstar Property
DATE:
September 9, 2003
INTRODUCTION
A draft of the AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] for the Seed/Genstar property wa~.
delivered to City Hall on Thursday, September 3, 2003, and is now ready for review and
comment by the Planning Commission.
.
DISCUSSION
The area that is locally referred to as the Seed/Genstar property encompasses approximately
1006 acres west of Highway 3 and east of the current boundaries of the City of Farmington
The property, which is owned by the Seed Family Trust, is the subject of an orderly
annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township that was approved by the
State of Minnesota's Municipal Board in May of 1999.
Sherri Buss of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates has coordinated the consulting work
that was required for the preparation of the Draft AUAR. She will be in attendance at the
Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday night to give you an overview of the AUAR's
contents and to answer any questions that you may have.
I have attached a copy of the tentative schedule for the remainder of the AUAR process. If
the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Draft AUAR, it will be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on September 15, 2003. If the City Council approves the Draft
AUAR, authorizes its distribution, and authorizes the publication of the required notice in the
EQB [Environmental Quality Board] Monitor, reviewing agencies and other interested parties
will then have 30 days to comment on the Draft AUAR. If all goes as planned, the AUAR could
be finalized and adopted by the City Council by the end of the year.
.
.
.
.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1.
2.
3.
Review Draft of AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review].
Ask questions (if any) and/or seek clarifications (if needed).
Adopt motion recommending that the City Council approve the Draft AUAR, either
(a) as is, or (b) with any additions, deletions or revisions suggested by the Planning
Commission.
K vin Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Steve Juetten
Sherri Buss
Empire Town Board
.
.
.
Farmington Seed/Genstar Revised Schedule
July, 2003
AUAR Publication. Reviews and Adoption
Sept. 9 Planning Commission reviews Draft AUAR
Sept. 15 City Council approves Draft AUAR for mailing
Sept. 17 AUAR mailed - 30 day comment period begins on Sept. 18
Oct. 17 30-day comment period ends
Oct. 20-31 Prepare responses to comments and review with City
Staff and Developer
Nov. 17 Review AUAR comments and Final AUAR with City Council
Nov. 19 Mail Final AUAR
Dec. 5 1 O-day objection period ends
Dec. 15
Council adopts final AUAR